WE are losing it.

Page 7 of 10  


Hold on a second there.
When the POTUS swears on the Bible that he will uphold his office...yadda, yadda...
The I think that everybody on down from him has to do the same.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Let me explain where I was coming from. I do believe that the Bible should be involved in the oath process, no exceptions. The judge that I was talking about had the 10 commandments displayed openly in the walls of the court room. Some people wanted those removed. I say too bad.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
----- Original Message -----

Why?
The bible is a printed book. Putting your hand on it is no different that swearing on last month's issue of Popular Woodworking (keeping on topic).
If you believe in the words of the bible, you don't need it to swear to and actually tell the truth. If you don't believe in the words of the bible, laws at they are written, and have already committed a crime, putting your hand on a book is not going to increase your morals and make you be honest. The bible is a symbol, not a truth machine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote \

IIRC, that is indeed why the word "affirmation" was added to the phrase "oath or affirmation", to insure the secular nature of the process.
... but then it's been a long time since my college days.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Solemnly swear or affirm" is the phrase.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"George" wrote in message

Not in the context I used it as a "process", which I clearly stated in the above. Go back and read your Constitution:
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Simply because it is symbolic and a gesture that that person agrees in front of every one that he will tell the truth. It guarantees nothing but like the lottery, you can't win if you don't play. I don't play the lottery but some people believe they will win. Not totally unlike giving some one your word. It is more about the higher standard of morals that the Bible represents.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How does a Bible represent a higher standard of morals, and higher than what?
People who draw moral guidance from the Bible do so by careful selection. The fact that so many people do, skipping over the genocide and so forth is quite encouraging. It shows that most people are fundamentally good by nature.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some jerk in Georgia won my 270 million last night.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

I'm an attorney, and so have been in court many times. I have NEVER seen a judge require a witness to put his/her hand on a Bible (except in the movies, but that's not an accurate portrayal of real life).
I personally am a Christian and believe in the Bible. James 5:12 says, "swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." I believe in that, and so when asked,I will solemnly affirm that I will tell the truth under penalty of perjury. But I will not swear an oath, because the Bible itself condemns it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am not going to disagree with any thing you have said here but would like to point out that the word "swear" has several meanings. Some of those meanings are positive and some are negative. The English version of the Bible is an interpreted version of the originals. When translated phrases/words were not always done so to capture the intent of the message. Thou shall not kill is a common example. Words do not always have the same meaning when translated. Like most any other language including English the word can have a totally different meaning when used with other words. He commonly "leaves" early, He raked the "leaves". The passage you quoted above IMHO indicates that if you are not true to your self/ believe what you say, others will recognize this and you will face those consequences.
I only recall seeing the Bible in court. That was not recently and perhaps is not the rule today.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

At the wedding in Canaan (Luke 3) water was changed into grape juice, according to the Greek text. Not wine. That makes a big difference to those who take that as a nod from Jesus that you can catch a buzz if you feel like it.
There is a whole lot of creative interpretation of things written in the Bible. Then there are those who live by the Bible using it as guide, and then there are those legalistic sunsabitches who use it as weapon.
I knew kids from my school who we NOT allowed to go swimming on Sunday.
Yup, they were not allowed to float in God's warm water and glory, bathe in the sunshine and find rest in that non-activity.
To paraphrase Carlin: "there are still people doing time for that Friday/bologna rap."
I digress and don't get me started....
r
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Not sure where you got that information, but coming from a denomination that diligently researches and uses the original languages (all of our ministers must be able to read the scriptures from the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic in the proper historical meanings those words had at the time they were written), I can tell you that is the first I have ever heard of that interpretation. It further does not fit with the rest of the context of the account where the master of the wedding makes the comment about how the best wine was usually served first, then after the guests had drunk too much, the lower quality wine brought out. Try substituting "grape juice" in that sentence and you don't get the same effect. Also doesn't work for the account of "new wine in new wineskins, and old wine in old wineskins" comment that occurs elsewhere in the gospels. Further, it doesn't work in the historical context; there was no way at that time for grape juice to have been kept unfermented for any period of time.
On the flip side, this was not an approval of drunkenness as the admonitions against that are found throughout scripture.

That there is.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The 'word' is oinos and can mean wine or grape juice. Fact.
The context, however, makes it clear that it probably was, in fact, wine.... the fermented stuff that made the guests, after having drunk freely, intoxicated.
My point was that some people wag their fingers and proclaim, NO NO NO that wasn't booze, it was grape juice. Therefore NO amount of alcohol is allowed. And others use it as an excuse to get intoxicated, because it is acceptable.
I wonder how peyote, pot, opium (all natural) rank on the 'cannot-do' scale.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I wonder how peyote, pot, opium (all natural) rank on the 'cannot-do' scale.
Far out and solid!
--
Dave in Houston



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

... snip

"fruit of the vine"

Kind of hard to make that argument based upon other passages, both Old and New Testament.

Again, same thing, there are numerous admonitions, both Old and New Testament against drunkenness.

They would easily fit into the admonition regarding drunkenness, has nothing to do with the "naturalness" of the substance but the use to which it is put. After all, hemlock is natural as well, it's still not good for one.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

<snip>
The wedding at Cana where Jesus changed water into wine is John 2:1 through 2:9. The Strong's Concordance list the original Greek word as:
G3631 οἶνος oinos oy'-nos A primary word (or perhaps of Hebrew origin [H3196]); “wine” (literally or figuratively):—wine.
The Hebrew [H3196] cross references to:
H3196יַיִ yayin yah'-yin From an unused root meaning to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by implication intoxication:—banqueting, wine, wine [-bibber].
It often debated but the with the custom of the time it is doubtful unfermented grape juice was served at the wedding.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

IIUC, you are saying that if a President choses to put his hand on a bible when he takes his oath of office the rest of us should be required to do the same when we testify in court?
Why shouldn't we have the same freedom when we take an oath that the President has when he takes the oath of office?
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No, he did not say that, You just said that. Reread the sentence he typed and leave out YOUR "in other words", interpretation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The only reason a President takes his oath of office with his hand on a bible is because he choses to do so. Some have chosen not to.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.